Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)

Absolutely and I will continue to try to keep it that way as well. Although it is being dealt with separately, the question of qualification under the habitual residency clause has been abysmally abused. The Minister knows about this and it was referred to yesterday. It is appalling. Irish citizens who were born in this country and emigrated — like the 42 million of Irish extraction in the United States and a very substantial number who emigrated to the UK — are being refused supplementary rent support at this moment, simply because of the habitual residency clause. It is absolutely disgraceful.

That clause was not introduced for the best of reasons. I know full well whom it was intended to deal with. Like other Irish solutions to Irish problems it is now hammering the people who are most vulnerable in our society and who can do nothing to respond, finding themselves between a rock and a hard place. I am not the only Member of this House meeting such people on a daily basis. Imagine the plight of returned emigrants from the UK, the US or anywhere in the world — they are entitled to come back to their own country. What type of a country have we become? They are now being refused rent support and other supports while the community welfare officers, in effect, gently intone, "Would you consider leaving this country?". How nice of them.

Perhaps I am too long in this House, but never in my time as an elected representative have I seen the application of that type of criteria. It is appalling that we, as a so-called caring society, should treat people like that. If there are people in this country who should not be here, why does somebody on the Government side of the House not say so? What are they hiding behind? Let them say it up-front and we can all have a look at this. Let there be no hidden agendas, no Irish solutions to Irish problems. Let us be fair and straight with everybody. Remember, we have obligations under international law and human rights commitments as well, which must be adhered to. No clever, slick anticipation or interpretation of rules and regulations and no clever responses at any level should, or will, be tolerated.

I want to mention the lending agencies and repossessions. For example, I referred to a case yesterday in this same debate, the logic of which I cannot understand. A person is on a mortgage, say, of €2,000 a month, when circumstances change. It is not a small mortgage, but there are many people on such mortgages who bought property in what they saw as good times. The Government assured them their future was secure and that this was the third richest country in the world, with 10% annual growth and with even greater growth prospects on the horizon. Everything was full of promise coming up to the general election, but what has happened now?

Family disputes can arise in a case like this, in many instances caused by the financial burden and one or other partner may leave the household, in the event. The current interpretation of the law will mean the community welfare officer will tell the remaining partner, usually the woman, in effect, "Sorry, you only get half the potential rent or mortgage support", as against what the household would receive when both partners were there. I cannot understand the logic of that. All that will happen is that she will fall further behind and be evicted. Then the Department will have to give her rent support for the entire amount in another house. Why does somebody not talk to the community welfare officers and explain to them what the consequences are? Incidentally, I received a coded message within the last few days after putting down a parliamentary question on one of these issues. A coded message came by way of the response sent out to the unfortunate constituent, which would appear to me to be a response to my parliamentary question. I recognise coded messages for what they are, and the response will be as it always was.

My last point echoes Deputy Olwyn Enright's concerns about the agreements people are being forced to sign, usually when they are under pressure, to the effect that they can never seek local authority rehousing again. Of course that is illegal. There is no law anywhere that can uphold that. It is pure extortion, an abuse of power by the authorities. They have no right to make such a demand, ever. No one can possibly determine what his or her circumstances will be like in the future, as we now know. Even the Government, which knew everything a couple of years ago, one year or six months ago, now knows nothing about anything. It can tell us nothing. The whole economy is falling apart, but it cannot tell us how it happened.

Equally, no court can enforce this agreement referred to by Deputy Enright, which countless people have felt obliged to sign, because the circumstances have changed. Once circumstances change, it is the duty of whatever Administration is in office to adjudicate on the basis of the prevailing situation. If there were more people present on the Government side today, I should love to engage with them on that particular issue.

See this speech in context